REPORT TO COUNCIL. District. of Barriere. Re: Re- Application to Exclude Land from the Agricultural. Land Reserve (ALR) Barriere Paint and Body

Transcription

1 District of Barriere REPORT TO COUNCIL Date: November 6, 2017 File: /Rpts To: Council From: CAO, Colleen Hannigan Re: Re- Application to Exclude Land from the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) Barriere Paint and Body Background: An application to exclude land from the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) was originally received from the applicant and his agent, approved and forwarded to the Agricultural _and Commission (ALC) by the District in June, It was then approved for exclusion by the ALC subject to a condition that was then not met within the required 3-year time frame. The applicant, with Councils continued support, then re-applied for exclusion in 2016 for this same parcel which is described as: LOT B DISTRICT LOTS 1482 AND 1483 KAMLOOPS DIVISION YALE DISTRICT PLAN KAP44331 EXCEPT PLAN KAP81149 PARCEL IDENTIFIER:O (See Subject Property on attached map) The District has recently been notified by the ALC that this time around the application has been rejected and the request for exclusion from the ALR denied (see ALC report attached). The applicant has submitted a request for reconsideration of this decision and is asking the District for a letter of support. Ifthis request is denied then a judicial review may follow. Discussion: The land was designated Residential in the new OCP based on the original ALC approval for exclusion in 2011 and zoned Country Residential (CR) which allows single and two family dwellings or mobile homes, professional practice, homecraft or occupation, golf courses, pet boarding and breeding kennels, agricultural and horticultural uses, parks and playgrounds, public service uses and a minimum lot size of 8,000 sq.m. The applicant hired the same qualified professional Agrologist to prepare his submission to the ALC. He presented his findings in person to Council on October 3, The Agrologist once again concluded that the parcel is not agricultural land as directed by the Act. The District concurred with this evaluation and is aware of the soil conditions on the subject lands and supports the application for exclusion. There is a limited amount of private land within the District boundaries that can be developed for future residential and the District believes this would be the highest and best use for these lands as they are not high in agricultural value. The CAO prepared and submitted the required Planning Report expressing this position to the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC). Recommendation: That Council continue to support Barriere Paint & Autobody s exclusion application to the ALC and request the ALC reconsider its decision to deny this exclusion for the good of the District of Barriere s residential lands. 4 E. Colleen Hannigan) of the futurexexpansion 93 /_/ CAO

2

3

4

5 October 10, ALC Agricultural Land Commission i33~4940 Canada Wciy Burnaby,BritishColumbiaV56 4K6 Tel: Fax: c.gov.bc,co File: Bob Holtby Regency Consultants Ltd Copper Ridge Drive West Kelowna, BC V4T 2X6 Dear Mr. Holtby: Re: Application to Exclude Land from the_a.gricu tural Land Reserve (ALR[ Please find attached the Reasons for Decision ofthe Interior Panel (Resolution #311/2017) as it relates to the above noted application. As agent, it is your responsibility to notify the applicant accordingly. Reconsideration of a Decision as Directed mihe ALC Chair Please note that pursuant to s of the Aqricultural Land Commission Act, the Chair may direct the Executive Committee to reconsider any panel decision if, within 60 days from the date of this decision, he considers that the decision may not fulfillthe purposes of the commission as set out in s. 6, or does not adequately take into consideration s You will be notified in writing if the Executive Committee is directed to reconsider your decision. The Commission advises you to take this 60 day period into consideration prior to proceeding with any actions upon this decision. Reconsideration of a Decision by an Affected Person We draw your attention to s. 33(1) of the Aqricultural Land Commission Act which provides a person affected the opportunity to submit a request for reconsideration. 33(1) On the written request of a person affected or on the commission's own initiative, the commission may reconsider a decision of the commission under this Act and may confirm, reverse or vary it if the commission determines that: (a) (b) evidence not available at the time of the original decision has become available, all or part of the original decision was based on evidence that was in error or was false. For further clarity, s. 33.1and s. 33(1) are separate and independent sections of the Agricultural Land Commission Act. Further correspondence with respect to this application is to be directed to Celeste Barlow at (Celeste.Bar ow@gov.bc.ca).

6 Page 2 of 2 Yours truly, PROVINCIAL AGRICULTURALLANDCOMMISSION Celeste Barlow, Land Use Planner Enclosure: Reasons for Decision (Resolution #311/2017) cc: District of Barriere (File: ALR-11-O1 R) 55749d1

7 AGRICULTURALLANDCOMMISSIONFILE55749 REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE INTERIOR PANEL Application submitted pursuant to s. 30(1) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act Applicant: Barriere Paint (the Applicant ) Agent: Bob Holtby (the Agent ) Application before the Interior Regional Panel: Richard Mumford, Panel Chair Roger Patenaude Bob Haywood-Farmer Page 1 of 9

8 K Agricultural Land Commission Decision, ALC File THE APPLICATION [1] The legal description of the property involved in the application is: Parcel Identifier: Lot B, District lots 1482 and 1483, Kamloops Division, Yale District, Plan KAP44331, Except Plan KAP81149 (the Property ) [2] The Property is 24.9 ha (24.7 ha in ALR) in area. [3] The Property has the civic address 5088 Barriere Town Road, Barriere, BC. [4] The Property is located partially within a designated agricultural land resen/e ( ALR )as defined in s. 1 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act (the ALCA ). [5] The Property is located within Zone 2 as defined in s. 4.2 of the ALCA. [6] In 2011, the Commission approved a 24.7 ha ALR portion of the 24.9 ha Property to be excluded from the ALR. One ofthe conditions of Resolution #331/2011 required the subdivision, which delineated the area to be excluded, to be completed within three (3) years from the date of the decision. Following the date of decision the Applicant attempted to find a partner to fund the expenses associated with the subdivision; however, was unsuccessful until recently. As a result of the conditions not being met by the allotted time frame, Resolution #331/2011 approval expired November 16, [7] Pursuant to s. 30(1) of the ALCA, the Applicant is applying to exclude the 24.7 ha ALR portion of the 24.9 ha Property from the ALR (the Proposal ). The Proposal along with supporting documentation is collectively referred to as the application (the Application ). Page 2 of 9

9 L Agricultural Land Commission Decision, ALC File RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS [8] The Application was made pursuant to s. 30(1) of the ALCA: 30 (1) An owner of land may apply to the commission to have their land excluded from an agricultural land reserve. [9] The Panel considered the Application pursuant to its mandate in s. 4.3 of the ALCA: 4.3 When exercising a power under this Act in relation to land located in Zone 2, the commission must consider all of the following, in descending order of priority: (a) the purposes of the commission set out in section 6; (b) economic, cultural and social values; (c) regional and community planning objectives; (cl) other prescribed considerations. [10] The purposes of the Agricultural Land Commission (the Commission ) set out in s. 6 are as follows: 6 The following are the purposes of the commission: (a) to preserve agricultural land; (b) to encourage interest; and farming on agricultural land in collaboration with other communities of (c) to encourage local governments, first nations, the government and its agents to enable and accommodate farm use of agricultural land and uses compatible with agriculture in their plans, bylaws and policies. EVIDENTIARY RECORD BEFORE THE PANEL [11] The Panel considered the following evidence: 1. The Application. Page 3 of 9

10 L Agricultural Land Commission Decision, ALC File Local government documents. Previous application history. Agricultural capability map, ALR context map, and satellite imagery. A report entitled An Opinion on a Re-Application for an Exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve prepared by the Agent, Bob Holtby, MSc, P. Ag. dated September 18",2016 (the Ho tby Opinion ). 6. Correspondence between ALC Staff and the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development. Alldocumentation advance of this decision. noted above were either provided by or disclosed to the Agent in [12] At its meeting of October 3, 2016, the District of Barriere board resolved to forward the Application to the Commission with a recommendation of approval. SITE VISIT [13] On April 18, 2017, the Panel conducted a walk-around and meeting site visit in accordance with the Policy Regarding Site Visits in Applications (the Site Visit ). [14] A site visit report was prepared in accordance with the Policy Regarding Site Visits in Applications. The site visit report was certified as accurately reflecting the observations and discussions of the Site Visit by the Agent on May 29, 2017 (the Site Visit Report ). FINDINGS Section 4.3{a) and Section 6 of the ALCA: First priority to agriculture Agricultural Capability Ratings [15] In assessing agricultural capability, the Panel referred in part to the agricultural capability mapping and ratings. The ratings are identified using the Canada Land Inventory (CLI), Soil Page 4 of 9

11 land land 3:1) L Agricultural Land Commission Decision, ALC File Capability Classification for Agriculture system. The improved agricultural capability ratings identified on CLI map sheet 92P/O1 for the mapping units encompassing the Property are Class 1 and Class 3; more specifically unimproved (7:4M and improved (7:3M 3:1). Class 1 is capable of producing the very widest range of crops. Soil and climate conditions are optimum, resulting in easy management. Class 3 - land is capable of producing a fairly wide range of crops under good management practices. Soil and/or climate limitations are somewhat restrictive. Class 4 is capable of a restricted range of crops. Soil and climate conditions require special management considerations. The limiting subclass associated with this parcel of land is M (moisture deficiency). [16] The Panel reviewed the CLI ratings and the Holtby Opinion. The Holtby Opinion submits the soils located on the Property do not have suf?cient moisture holding capacity due to the gravels and sand substructure. The Panel must make its decision based not only on all the evidence before it, but also based on its own assessment of that evidence. The Panel finds that insufficient evidence has been provided to conclude that the Property is restricted by insufficient moisture holding capacity. [17] The Holtby Opinion submits that the Property was burned in a fire in 2003 and that the current vegetation structure does not indicate a soil suited for forage production as the Class 4 unimproved rating would indicate and that the /and is not arable and is not capable of supporting soil based agriculture. Based on the Panels review of the CLI ratings, photographs in the Holtby Opinion, and obsen/ations from the Site Visit, the Panel disagrees with the Holtby opinion that the property is not arable or suitable for agriculture. [18] The Holtby Opinion references an agricultural assessment letter completed for the Property by J. P. Ross, Ph.D, P.Ag, dated April 20, 1998 (the Ross Letter ). The Ross Letterfinds that: Page 5 of 9

12 L Agricultural Land Commission Decision, ALC File [t]he soils should be rated 90% Class 7 and 10% Class 6 with subclass S applicable due to undesirable soil structure, low fertility, moisture de?ciency and stoniness. Improvements of this land is not feasible in pan clue to the nature of the land and also because farming implements cannot be operated on this land. in their review of the Ross letter, the Panel noted the agricultural assessment was completed while the land was under forest cover, and the number of soil samples collected was not specified. in addition, it does not appear that the agricultural assessment was completed to the standard normally practiced by professionals working in the areas of soil survey and agricultural capability assessment. Despite the Panel's reservations about the overall methodology of the Ross Letter, it put its mind to the submissions regarding soil capability and limitations. [19] With regard to the Ross Letters assertion that the Property is limited by stoniness, the photographs of soil profiles on the southwest portion of the Property in the Holtby Opinion show stones within the profile. However, it is not evident from other photographs in the Holtby Opinion that these stones are located throughout the Property and that the limitation can therefore be extrapolated to the rest of the Property. [20] The Ross Letter references low fertility and moisture deficiency; however, the Panel finds that both of these factors could be managed with good farm practices. [21] The Ross Letter claims that farming implements could not be used on the Property. Based on observations at the Site Visit, the Panel finds that utilizing farm implements could be challenging on a small portion of the Property close to the edge of the bench; however, implements could be used on the majority of the Property. Access to Water [22] The Holtby Opinion submits that there is no water licence available for the Property to improve the range of crops available. Page 6 of 9

13 application L Agricultural Land Commission Decision, ALC File [23] The Panel directed Commission staff to contact Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development ( FLNR )to inquire about the availability of irrigation water. The Agent submits that there is a water licence from Leonie Creek, but the license belongs to the home lot adjacent to the Property and owned by the Applicant (PID: ). According to FLNRstaff, the water licence from Leonie Creek is also issued for the Property. in addition, there are two rivers close to the Property which are not fully recorded, and according to FLNR staff an additional water licence could be applied for if there is sufficient justification from Leonie Creek is not adequate. that the current quantity of water issued by the water license [24] The Panel has determined based on all the evidence presented to it, observations made during the Site Visit, and responses from FLNR that the Property has agricultural capability, is suitable for agricultural activities and should be retained in the ALR. Previous Decisions [25] The Panel also reviewed the following previous applications involving the Property: 2007 Application ID to exclude the 24.7 ha ALR portion of the 24.9 ha Property from the ALR. The Commission concluded that the Property has agricultural capability and is appropriately designated as ALR, the proposal would impact agriculture, and the proposal was inconsistent with the objectives of the ALCA to preserve agricultural land. The application was refused by Resolution #64/ Application ID: application to exclude the 24.7 ha ALR portion of the 24.9 ha Property from the ALR. The Commission was provided with a report from Bob Holtby which has similar conclusions to the current Holtby Opinion. The Commission of the day concluded that the Property had limited agricultural capability, was not appropriately designated as ALR, and that the Property was not suitable for agricultural use. The Page 7 of 9

14 L Agricultural Land Commission Decision, ALC File application was approved by Resolution #331l2011. The Panel reviewed Resolution #331/2011 and finds based on their review of all of the evidence that the conclusions of that decision may have been founded on incorrect information that lacked evidence to support the statements. Section 4.3(b) of the ALCA: Second priority to economic, cultural and social values [26] The Panel did not receive any evidence or rationale regarding economic, cultural and social values. Section 4. 3(c) of the ALCA: third priority to reqional and community planning objectives [27] The Property is zoned as Country Residential (CR) in the District of Barriere Zoning Bylaw No. 111, 2014 (the Zoning Bylaw ), and is designated Residential under the District of Barriere Official Community Plan (the OCP"). The Panel understands that the Property was designated Residential and rezoned CR based on Resolution #331/2011. The Planning Report submitted by the District of Barriere concurs with the evaluation of the Holtby Opinion that the Property is not agricultural land". The Panel respects that the District of Barriere proceeded with rezoning and designating the Property Country Residential based on the prior Commission's approval for exclusion; however, the Panel finds the conclusions of that decision may have been founded on incorrect information and lack of evidence to support the statements made in the application submissions. Weighing the factors in griority [28] The Panel gave consideration to regional and community planning objectives as required by s In this case, the Panel finds that these considerations are not contributory to the decision given the Panel s finding following its review of the agricultural considerations. Page 8 of 9

15 L Agricultural Land Commission Decision, ALC File DECISION [29] For the reasons given above, the Panel refuses the Proposal to exclude the 24.7 ha ALR portion of the 24.9 ha Property from the ALR. [30] These are the unanimous reasons of the Interior Panel of the Agricultural Land Commission. [31] A decision of the Panel is a decision of the Commission pursuant to s. 11.1(5) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act. [32] This decision is recorded as Resolution #311/2017 and is released on October 10, CERTIFICATION OF DECISION?.M/ a..az_ / Richard Mumford, Panel Char, on behalf ofthe interior Panel END OF DOCUMENT Page 9 of 9

16